although you may b disappointed to learn that in the early years of Wikipedia everyone thought the same thing, and would have laughed at me for saying the obvious. Anyway, I hope your troubles are behind you. Many of the lessons of Wikipedia are about how to work with people who are way more different from us - including in style and form of expression, as well as manner of thinking - than ourselves and I hope you are able to negotiate all this effectively. Slrubenstein | Talk14:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. And for your note - I wish that the "wikipedia community" - I mean more editors - viewed this motion against SV as an opportunity to discuss as a community Wikipedia's valueas and where it is going for example on the talk page of the RFA discussion concerning SV. But most editors usually just ignore these things, where is there a community space for an honest and inclusive community conversation? I've never succeeded in getting one going ... Slrubenstein | Talk15:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alastair Haines!!!. I saw your name listed at WP:PRV as a general copyeditor. I was wondering if you can copyedit Goan Catholics, which is about a small Christian group, since I have noticed you are interested in Christianity. You can take your own time and copyedit the article whenever you are free. Also, if you have any suggestions, please do put it up. Thanks in anticipation, Sanfytalk13:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Alastair. You are right. Just check Talk:Mangalorean Catholics#GA Review2, you'll find the article just failed due to reliability issues. I can prove that none of the references used are unreliable. Sources used although not the best, but works for the article. If the reviewer just gives me a day to explain why the sources are considered reliable, I can prove it, but failing the article just because the reviewer declares it unreliable, withouth even bothering to check it's reliabilty. This is totally unacceptable. Do you think the Prose is not of GA quality? The article has already been copyedited by User:Finetooth. If you think so, please do some light copyedits. Professional copyedits are not required as this is just a GA nominee. FA is not possible as the article is not complete.
I know this site is unreliable for contentious claims. But it is used only in the Organization section. Because for a organization of 200-300 people, there's no BBC, CNN or any other national newspaper. Such local e-papers have to be used for such non-contentious claims. KensplanetTalkContributions12:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a site widely used across Wikipedia. Looking at the sources, it is clear that the contents are updated directly from the Vatican http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/sources.html. Anyway, do you think it is unreliable.
I am proud that India's tragedy is Australia's also, may those who suffer together learn to love together.
Indiancatholics.com
"The Indiancatholic.com is owned and maintained by the Office of the Spokesperson and the Media/Information Office of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of India." The Media/Information Office was established as the "Public Relations Office in 1992". They claim to be "the most popular Church News and Information Service on the Internet from India."
They are a public relations office, hence represent an authoritative, but self-interested, source of information regarding matters within their jurisdiction—the CBCI. This jurisdiction includes Mangalore Catholics. However, they are not a reliable source of their own popularity.
Some articles are written by contributors external to the Office, but reviewed by professionals. Regarding historical information, better sources should be obtained. Regarding contemporary and local opinions and matters of self-identification, it is a valid and reliable source.
Daijiworld.com
Daijiworld claim "100,000 individuals from around 180 countries" visit their site daily. I can only repeat that a Wiki editor who specialises in Wiki standards regarding RS has confirmed that an e-paper, with a named editor-in-chief and published head office address is acceptable.
Magalorean.com
Dear Ken, I consider this a reliable source, but you are right, controversial claims should not be sourced on this site. However, the photographic documentation of the events is outstanding. I think those underline the value of local e-papers to Wikipedia. I suppose photographs can be doctored or mis-captioned, but there is nothing controversial here. How better could we convince someone an event took place in a local community than to show photographs of that event published in a local e-paper?
Catholic-heirarchy.org
"This web site is not officially sanctioned or approved by any Catholic Church authority."
"The contents are purely the responsibility of David M. Cheney."
I trust David M. Cheney, but Wiki cannot. But we can cite the sources he cites, and those are reliable (the Bibliography, that is, and maybe the web-sites). Perhaps you need to isolate the references that he used to produce the information you use. Additionally, it is a convenient online summary of information based on those reliable sources, which contains no advertising and costs nothing to visit—an excellent External link.
I have found a something: The Text of the NT in Contemporary Research, p. 31.
I spent a nice time in Scotland. They have very particular way for pronounciation of English. It was problem. "Speak slower please". I was too short to learn this kind of pronounciation (letters: r, h). Sometimes I tought: "In what language he is speaking". I was surprised that everything (almost everything) is cheapper than in Poland. Films on DVD two times cheapper (I like Schwarzenegger, James Bond etc.). Prices in Poland are very expensive. Why? Corruption? In the next year I think about Israel (in October). It is most expensive country in the world. Every man, who loves Bible thinks about this country. Cordialement. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I look at the WP talk:Manual of Style discussion, the primary message i get is - Add notes, links, if necessary. Brackets or short explanations in the text do work. --RedtigerxyzTalk05:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G'day all - I'm hoping that I might persuade you along to a Wiki christmas celebration / meetup on december 18th :-) - The meetup regulars are a friendly bunch, and we're very much hoping to get a few new folk along to chat about all things Wiki (and there are apparently some exciting things in the pipeline! Come along to find out a bit more ;-) - you can sign up here - and do feel free to edit that page with any more ideas or suggestions too :-)
Hope to see you there - I've heard a rumour that the first drink is on the highest placed Australian in the current arbcom elections.... Privatemusings (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)ok, so I started that rumour too....[reply]
OMG. What a deep research. You are a genius. Please teach me the art of judging reliable sources. I cannot still digest it that this site can be unreliable in any way. All the contents are reviewed by professionals. The accuracy of the contents are thoroughly checked. There are a very very few online sources for the community which may be considered reliable. I think this is one of them. All others are Blogs, etc.. How can we forget, this is from the Catholic Bishops' Conference of India, the most reliable source which we can ever trust. There are hardly any reliable sources left if such reputed organizations are not considered reliable. KensplanetTalkContributions07:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Catholic-heirarchy.org
I am a fool. I should have read the About. Instead I just read the sources. The Site is unreliable then. Are you sure we can use the Bibliography sources. I haven't gone through any of them. KensplanetTalkContributions07:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you say you have checked Indiancatholic.com is used to site British general Arthur Wellesley helped 10,000 of them return to South Canara and resettle on their lands.
Apart from that, it is also used as a Reference for (not mentioned as a Ref) in the Lead
Most of the ancestors of Mangalorean Catholics, were Goan Catholics, who had migrated to South Canara from towns in Goa, a state north of Canara, between 1500 and 1763 during the Goa Inquisition and the Portuguese-Maratha wars. (the date)
Gradually they learned the languages of South Canara but retained Konkani as their mother tongue.
Although the article appears in Mangalorean.Com, it is a Press release from the organization itself. Are Images, text and other stuff rom press releases in the Public domain?
No no I am not using it. If Press release images are in the public domain, then I think the Images of terrorists captured on CCTV can be put in the terrorist attacks article. I'll check it out. KensplanetTalkContributions08:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know you are a professional writer. Anyone can guess that after analyzing your smart posts. Please use your Australian as well as American holiday. :) You can make money easily by your writings. Do you intend to become a writer. Do not forget to release all your contents under the Public Domain. Actually, I don wanna use any online URL's but have to sometimes. Anyway, I'll try to improve. I promise to use only books henceforth. Your sources above are excellent. I'll work on that. Please accept this Barnstar from me. I am too. much impressed with you.
yes, sorry, I was miffed that you had reverted the lead yet again. I should take (and did take) my own advice. As it stands, your final post to the talkpage is perfectly constructive, and as I state, I have no beef with the biological discussion, I simply insist that historical and sociological angles be given greater weight. Thanks, --dab(𒁳)12:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if you have seen my Heide Göttner-Abendroth article -- this is the kind of feminist pseudo-scholarship that makes you itch for rebuttals. But WP:DUE says we shouldn't devote space to debunking theories that don't have any support in the first place, at least not in articles that are really dedicated to a larger scope. --dab(𒁳)12:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt Aland and some other articles of my recent editing
You requested about expansion of this article by translating it from the excellent de:Wiki page. Today I have translated section "Biograrfie" from de:wiki. Section "Zur theologischen Bedeutung Alands"... maybe later.
In Martin Schøyen Collection I wrote: "Ms 2650, Codex Schøyen, from the 4th century, the oldest Gospel of Matthew in Coptic dialect", but someone contested It on a Talk page. It is the oldest Coptic manuscript of Mathhew, not the oldest manuscript of NT at all. By the way, only 21 uncial mss remain. Do you want some of them? With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the article Codex BoreelianusUser:Textcrit - perhaps expert - add linkes and some information to the article. Links are very usefull (all images of the codex, history of the codex, collation). On the basis of this links we can axpand article succesfylly. Now we have access to every important information about this codex. His contribution is very important for this article (even crucial). I did not know, that this codex was digitalized. It is nice, that sometimes some experts correct and expand our work. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Today I made about 100 edits on the en-wiki articles, and only 3 on other wikis (pl-wiki - 1 edit, fr-wiki - 1 edit, and de-wiki - 1 edit). I have created a new section in the article Papyrus - Papyrus#Collections of papyri. I think in List of New Testament papyri we need to write about collections in a similar way. In suggest to create in the article Biblical manuscripts new sections: Palimpsests and diglot manuscripts.
I have ordered brochure "Codex Sinaiticus" hrsg. Ulrich Johannes Schneider, Leipzig im Universitätsverlag 2007, ISBN978-3-86583-182-8. It has 48 pages, and 9.80 €. (See Leipziger Universitätsverlag).
They answered me: "in den nächsten Tagen zugestellt werden kann".
I need every information about every manuscript.
Yesterday I created article Minuscule 1739, I made some links to Church Fathers quoted on a margin of this manuscript, and to my surprise Clement of Rome is named as Pope Clement I. Why? It is anachronismus. I agree with your comments on the talk page.
What about biblical variants? Perhaps in Februar. For now I have a lot of other work (minuscules and expansion of uncials). I have expanded Uncial 0308. I think this article is complete. Do you want to see it? Maybe I will create "Princeton Papyri" (there are a lot of links). We have Michigan Papyrus Collection, we can have Princeton Papyrus Collection too.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only manuscripts
You know, Józef Antoni Poniatowski is complete enogh (for me). It is not my subject. In history of Poland only 17th century is interesting for me. But I created Hasta la vista, baby. I was intended to create this article even in April, but manuscripts are always primary target for me. On pl-wiki I created several articles about symphonies of Mendelssohn (they did not existed on pl-wiki before my editing), pl:Staffa, pl:Grota Fingala. They were translated from English (partly from German). Several articles about places and rivers of the Białowieża Forest (f.e. pl:Łutownia). It is my place. I was born there. Perhaps I should translate them into English... Maybe later. Manuscripts, libraries, collections are more interesting for me. 14 December I edited mainly on fr:wiki. I like this language, and I use wikipedia for learning. But I do not speak (completely). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say thanks for dropping by my talk page. While I still firmly believe I was right, obviously that conversation was past the point of doing anyone any good, and your calm, non-biased remarks were just what both of us needed. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for taking the time to have a look at the article, and also for all your kind words and encouragements ! It looks much better now. This was so nice of you. Have a merry Christmas, Rosenknospe (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits to masculinity contradict reliable sources that use the word "masculine" to describe females as well as males. As "masculine" means having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man,[1] this means masculinity isn't just about maleness but also about traits considered masculine, and thus masculinity can be applied to things and people of either sex. Blackworm (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that reliable sources make it clear that masculinity is about much more than "maleness". Whether restoring previous text upheld that view, was consistent with it, or contradicts it we should discuss further, probably at the article's talk page. Comments to that effect are on your own talk page. Thanks for your reply there. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I happened to notice your excellent copyedit contributions in the current FAC article Vithoba. I authored the above article, which failed FAC about 6 months back, mostly for prose issues. I got busy with other successful FAC's thereafter. Do you have the time to do a copyedit to this well cited article which I am planning to bring to FAC again. PS: It has significant information on one of your favorite topics (Jainism). Regards,Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your respond. Having copy edited many of Dinesh's articles, and then being attacked by his supporters for copy editing Tamil-related articles, I am only concerned that articles be fair and not biased or supporting one ethnic group/language over another. That is purely my concern. As I am sure you are aware, no one owns an article on Wikipedia. That is true of this one also, whom ever the "main" editor is. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 07:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...and then being attacked by his supporters for copy editing Tamil-related articles,..." - do you have any evidence/diffs for your preposterous claims or is it just that you revel in shooting your mouth off? Sarvagnya17:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Friend Sarvagnya, please read my comment below, with gentleness I would ask you to respect my desire not to know of other people's past conflicts in this area. Please allow me room to enjoy meeting new people as though there is no past. I think Mattisse has said what he wants to say. I think it is over, he has moved on. Does what I say make sense, can you see that everyone is new to me and I'm just looking forward to enjoying learning new things with new friends? When you think of me, please think of ahimsa, that is what I seek at Wiki. It is possible, and I expect you and I may share that in future work together. Peace friend. Alastair Haines (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I do thank you, but I'm getting more of a picture than I need to know. I love contributors and copyeditors, hard working people. I hope people will forgive me for trying to be neutral. Politics is something I dislike. I am the kind of idiot that tries to be everyone's friend. ;)
Just now, Dinesh is a new friend. Thank you for leaving us space to build that independently of past and separate issues. There is a lot of history in India, like everywhere, and I can't take sides in what I don't understand. Yes, I will try hard to gently help people give me that space if we ever need to discuss that.
There is a lot of space at Wikipedia, very often we can move away from bad experiences. I wish you better luck in future copyediting work. It's such a great contribution to the encyclopedia. Have a really nice day, Mattisse. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for starting your work on this article. While you are at it, could you check the veracity of this claim by Fowler in the lead However, other scholars believe the literary tradition in Kannada to have begun with Kavirajamarga itself,[20][21] and point to the absence of references before the ninth century in the early literary works such as the Sabdamanidarpanam of Kesiraja.[22]. I know what Sheldon Pollock says (he is a Sanskrit scholar), but I am rather surprised at the citation provided citing Chidananda Murthy, who as far I know, claims 7th century Kannada literature (opus like) existed. Requesting for scanned copies for verification, in case a google search does not help is also a possibility. We want to make sure that there is no WP:SYN, putting togather two disparate sentences from multiple sources to convey one meaning. I have requested another user to verify this, if required from book sources in India.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not forgotten my promise, and have been looking forward to getting back to your excellent article, and to some of the fascinating research related to it.
My modem failed about 10 days ago, and my motherboard a few days later, so I've been offline for a while working on real life things.
Please give me a few days to get reorganized and your article will become my top priority project.
Sorry for not understanding your position in this article. I have never interacted with User:AzureFury before, but I think he has real problem understanding what constitutes original research. I am not the only one who has brought that up in that talk page. But reading your comments again, I get a feeling that you are a sweet-speaking person trying not to hurt others sentiments including AzureFury. Please forgive me if my understanding was and is wrong. I hope your constructive comments regarding the improvement of the article will also be taken into account in your absence.Docku:What up?15:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nice and wise words. I agree wih you that sourcing the article is going to be difficult but possible. Let us see how it all turns out. thanks for your offer of help and have great holidays. Docku:What up?01:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ROFL! ChildofMidnight that's brilliant! After all those years of wondering how one man could give gifts all over the world in a single night, finally someone tells me ... someone else is actually co-ordinating the operation! Perfect and so true!
I saw your response! :) I was glad you enjoyed it. I was going to say something about the elves getting all the credit, but I thought I better not push it. Merry Christmas. Happy Holidays. Bless you! ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alastair do you remember me User:Sanfy who sent you a message for copyediting for Goan Catholics. May the joy and peace of Christmas be with you, all through the year.. Wishing u n yr family season of blessing from heaven above. Merry Christmas Alastair Haines.SanfyTalk
It was already done. I just drew the table and time-frames. Also added some Images, It's not so difficult since the Governors of Bombay are well documented as can be seen from Primary Sources KensplanetTC05:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome, friend. Please consider registering some time, any name or gender will do, I just find a tag other than a number easier to related to. ;) Very best to you too. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 07:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want create new category: "New Testament manuscripts" for articles like CSNTM, INTF, Family 1, Family 13, Jerusalem Colophon. Articles f1, f13 have wrong category for now (Category:New Testament text-types). They are not text-types, but sub-families of one of text-type. In that case Category:Caesarean text-type can be usefull, but I do not think we need multiply Categories.
I am intending to create several articles about families and subfamilies of manuscripts (like Family Π, "Family 1424" and other in impossible to immagine the future). These articles will need "Category:New Testament manuscripts". Of course we can create "families of New Testament manuscripts", but what we can do with articles Jerusalem Colophon, CSNTM, INTF, and others which still do not have precise categories. If you agreed with me do not answer. I use Gregory now. It is good for expanding articles. It will take a long time for me. I want to expand intro in lists of NT papyri, and NT uncials. These articles should be featered. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This barnstar awarded by Vithoba to Alastair Haines, to say Thanks for Alastair's great work in copyediting as well as his suggestions in other aspects, which made the article a FA. RedtigerxyzTalk05:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Hi! We never crossed paths but I have seen that you have worked hard on many India-related articles. Just dropped by to say your efforts are appreciated. Thanks, --KnowledgeHegemonytalk17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Alastair for raising some very important points in the BLP survey. These are issues that many people seem to be running away from when they should be discussing them. Your points about the Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick case are very pertinent - especially for those of us living in jurisdictions where libel laws are far far stricter than the USA's--Caililtalk21:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so sure, but I know one your copy edit work is really excelent. It is not only my opinion. Did you see Codex Sinaiticus in last time? It was nominated to GA (it has above 39 000 scores). I do not know if you actually have a time, but just for the moment. Three days ago pl:Kodeks Watykański received GA (almost 30 000 scores). I will try to translate into English additional material, but for now Codex Sinaiticus is more important. I think also about expanding article Codex Alexandrinus, and Novum Instrumentum omne (it has 13 556 scores for now). You said about other languages, but not on every wiki "professional" articles are so welcome. "More popular style please". But the article Hasta la vista, baby is more fraquently visited, than any other created by me. It is not surprised for me. With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have created article Matthew 16:2b-3. You have a lot of edits in Mark 16, John 7:53-8:11, and Comma Johanneum, it means subject is yours. You can edit. It has only 7 300 scores, but it can have 20 000. It is also like introduction to the list of textual variants. I did not know before that Minuscule 579 inserted this passage after verse 9. With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the barnstar for my little gnoming effort on your article. Your acknowledgment enthuses me to do some more new page patrolling heh. Thank you for writing the article in the first place, as well as the huge effort you're putting in to List of Australian butterflies and numerous others before
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Frans Kasiepo, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Frans Kasiepo is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Frans Kasiepo, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good work Mr Botsky, this has been organised well. Frans Kasiepo now links to Frans KaIsiepo, a hero of the Republic of Indonesia. Decidedly notable chap, and the mis-spelling can be found in even the best sources. It would be a bit curious, but I can provide both primary and secondary sources for the mis-spelling to argue for the retention of the redirect if necessary, but surely redirects don't need this kind of attention. ;)
I speak an old Flemish dialect which is a bit removed from current Dutch....but here goes..........
The Malino Conference on 25 July 1946 will be held in Malino on the island of Celeses (?). The Netherlands says that during the conference for states in to feed (not sure what is meant here). LG____________ launches the idea.
The idea is that the Dutch East Indies, in a/the future independant world (will exist) in the form of a federation of different states. The plan is that the federation remains part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, with Queen Wilhelmina as Head of State. Sokarno gets a republic with its own states with the new United States of Indonesia.
The Republic wants to know nothing of the idea.
Sokarno doesn't agree with the idea. He wants, first, the complete independence of Indonesia in terms of a unitary state (not a federation).Then and only then will he consider keeping a link with the Netherlands.--Buster7 (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alastair, if I may make a contribution: I actually agree with much of what you'd like to write about vis-a-vis the Gender of God article. I think, however, you're making these contributions in the wrong Wikipedia entry. In other words, the other editors who have come to a consensus not to include this material are right about not placing that particular text within this particular article, yet you are right about the need to have these clarifications within Wikipedia articles.
The real problem seems to be one I have seen years ago on Wikipedia, back when I was a very active editor & contributor. Too many topics began to develop, in too much depth, for all of it to make sense within just one article. As such, we started splitting articles up into a series of related articles. Given what the consensus is for other articles, I think we should have the same sort of distinction in Gender of God. The gender of God article is already covering many topics. In line with what we do elsewhere, whenever possible we briefly discuss an issue, and link to the appropriate article which discusses that point in more depth. RK (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for commenting RK, however the two editors are simply lying. There has never been consensus against the text. Both Skywriter and StormRider explictly stated they do not see any problem with the text. Their comments are in the top section of the talk page.
If the talk page is examined (and too much sidetracking makes that difficult) it is clear that some editors have been unclear about features of the usage of "God" and "god" in English and about the significant difference between sex and gender.
If you'd like to see work I've done in other articles regarding clarifying the meaning of gender and sex you can look at the Gender article. I feel no need to reproduce all that in Gender of God.
As for the OED on usage of "God", that is especially useful material to address questions raise by Andowney a long time ago. The English language itself is evidence for the masculinity of God in Christianity. If it's not said at the top of the article it is worth saying in the Christianity section. It's a profoundly important line of evidence, with the additional advantage that it clarifies a number of other issues.
I'm afraid, there is a lot of personal animosity expressed in endless repetitions of blatantly untrue statements about me and about discussion at the page, and the processes that are supposed to moderate these things have failed miserably. A Wikequette request by me, returned a verdict that Ilkali was allowed to delete talk page posts!
We are actually only dealing with two difficult editors who find it convenient to defame someone who makes life awkward for them by insisting on sources rather than anonymous opinions shaping an article.
I'm sorry, but until someone actually addresses these basic content issues at the article, it endlessly to falls to me to maintain it. If I delay, my delay is counted as "implicit consensus" for changes. If I act, I am threatened with blocking. I have tried both and will continue to do so until this is resolved.
It's not rocket-science, the OED on the gender of God in usage being shaped by religious views is obviously bang on topic, and something that leads to endless scepticism in talk page posts unless this sourced, academic consensus material is established.
It needs to be remembered that the same editors claiming the OED material is not useful, claimed previously that the definition of God was vitally important, and that they knew what it was--it excluded polytheism. They are happy to define what they think it means--one mediator claimed God is the God of Judaism, as though that settled the matter.
You can't ask people to take you seriously for considering the scope of the meaning of "God" or whether it should be capitalised, and then to take you seriously when you claim sources like the OED on precisely those issues are not relevant. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Alynna (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope everything is OK. I am really impressed by the List of Australian butterflies. I have initiated the article about one of the most notable Russian scientifist from the beginning of the 20th century. His life was very intersting and tragic. One of his work was translated into German and it was enough for accusing him as a traitor. Even for me it is difficult to imagine. If this people could born in Germany or Britain his carrier could be comparied with Tischendorf, Tregelles, Scrivener, and Gregory, but unfortunatelly a big talent was not utilized enough. Byzantine culture wa main field of his interest, but he discovered three more freagments of Codex Sinaiticus and brought them to Petersburg (it is strong argument against arguments of Sinai monks that Codex Sinaiticus was lent to Tischendorf). Perhaps I should expand this article on the basis of the article from ru-wiki. His life is really interesting as much as his big talent. If you have a time you can copyedit the article Vladimir N. Beneshevich. You are welcome in every of my article. I see User:AlbertHerring watch my edits. It is good, I am gratiful for him. En-wiki is my place.
In last time I have discovered this F. Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London, 1912). This book can be usefull for the wikipedia articles and not only for the wikipedia articles. This book is really useful. Internet is very helpful. In last two days I initiated five articles on de-wiki, but unfortunatelly writing in German is more difficult for me than in French. I do not know why. French is more similar to English. Perhaps it is the reason. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The codex is a lectionary, it contains Lessons from the Gospels: John, Matthew, Luke (Evangelistarium)." - How to put these words in perfect way? I think we need more lectionaries. Russian Caravan, interesting. Now editing on de-wiki is a little easier. Aller Anfang ist schwer. My last article - de:Codex Zakynthius. I see, on de-wiki manuscript's articles are more needed than on fr-wiki. They have more readers. Thanks for showing this counter. Not every wiki use it, but it is no problem. All the best. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:DevPsychBio.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
To Alastair (about Mahakuta inscription): I visited this scerene and architecturally interesting place, Mahakuta, near Badami, last July, and was disappointed to hear that this inscription you mention (602 CE) has been moved to a museum in Bijapur, about 150 kms away. The interesting thing is, apart from the fact that a good pecentage of Badami Chalukya inscriptions are in their native Kannada language and script, most of their Sanskrit inscriptions are written in the Old-Kannada script, including the famous Badami fort inscription of Pulakesi I (543 CE) and the Aihole inscription (636 CE) of Ravi Kirti, court poet of Pulakesi II–an indication how well developed Kannada was as a written language by that time.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Protagoras: "No-one really knows anything!"
..Socrates: "How do you know?"
Is there an answer? Best to you and yours. Having fun rescuing articles. It beats knocking heads with the elite and the syops. In a way it embraces my goal with WikiKnights. Live Long and Prosper, good sir!--Buster7 (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-You are recieving this message because you are listed as interested in wiki-meetups in Sydney-
The Powerhouse Museum will be giving Wikimedia Australia members (and friends) a personal tour through their collections - much of it not on public display. They'll take photos for us and give us access to their curators. Afterwards, they give us a meeting room and we help improve articles about their items. 20people Max.
Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch><>°°03:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alastair do you remember me User:Sanfy who sent you a message for copyediting for Goan Catholics. May the joy and peace of Christmas be with you, all through the year.. Wishing u n yr family season of blessing from heaven above. Merry Christmas Alastair Haines.SanfyTalk
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_logo.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Alynna (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
